How are "Universal Apps" going to get us "these" apps??

Had a quick look through the thread but I don't think anyone said this yet: MS is playing a long game and are basically preparing to use their Big eFFing Gun--Windows current market popularity--to prop up Windows 10 Phone (or whatever it's going to be called). If this fails, there's not much more they can do. The idea starts with letting all Windows 7 and Windows 8.x PCs upgrade for free for the first year of Windows 10's existence. Assuming all eligible users update immediately, that's about 70% of the Windows user base as opposed to about 15% now.

Step 2 is that they go to developers and say "Want your app to run on 70% of all the PCs out there? Build for Windows!" The catch with Universal apps is that every Windows 10 app can also run on the phone. That wasn't true with Win8.1/WP8.1 apps. You had to specifically make it spit out two apps. MS isn't hoping that this vaults Win10 Phone up to Android level, but that it makes developers start to look at the platform as one worth supporting. It's not going to get the latest Instagram app just because PC support is high, but the idea is to get things like a regularly-updated 1st-party Facebook or Chase app. If Win10 desktop gets it, Win10 Phone gets it. If this flood of new, 1st party apps revitalizes Windows Phone as a legitimate developer target, it could take off as a true third mobile OS and lead to the hot mobile-specific apps hitting the phone and getting updates regularly.

That's the theory, anyway. There are so many ways this could fail: Users could use Windows 10 apps at the same pitiful rate as they do on Win 8.x. The new unified UI and prominent store should help there immensely. Developers may not care much about desktop apps. Most of the hottest apps are meant to solve mobile-only problems. VS backers are more impressed by "Our product will enable people to do X on their phone," than "Our product will enable people to do X on their desktop." Even if Win10 catches fire, there's no guarantee that Win10 Phone will. It's already a known quantity to users and to the carriers.If Win10 starts to move some handsets, the carriers who are desperate for another major OS might give Win10 Phone more of a boost.

Honestly I think it's a bit of a long shot, but it does appear to be their strategy going forward. If this doesn't pan out, I don't really see much of a reason not to kill the phone OS off entirely.

This has already been stated. The point is, what incentive is there for developers who's app is purely mobile in design and purpose and serves no function on a tablet or desktop. There doesn't seem to be one with universal apps, other than the hopeful ripple effect it may cause getting more people interested in WP

Maybe MS is ahead of their time. Perhaps in the future phones will become more powerful, to the point you will be able to attach them to a monitor and keyboard - use them like a laptop, detach, and put back in your pocket?

Or in the near future - we get a lot of developer who don't bother with this platform....

Perhaps in the future phones will become more powerful, to the point you will be able to attach them to a monitor and keyboard - use them like a laptop, detach, and put back in your pocket?

I think they have demonstrate that at MCW to attach a k-board to a phone.....But don't quote me on that I would have to revisit the video again. Now that everything will be cloud base, yes why not....I know Miracast is integrated in the phone so it can be projected on bigger screen..

Maybe MS is ahead of their time. Perhaps in the future phones will become more powerful, to the point you will be able to attach them to a monitor and keyboard - use them like a laptop, detach, and put back in your pocket?

I've thought about this one for quite a while. You're talking about taking your "computing node" with you all the time. Is that really superior to using some sort of cloud storage that links separate tailored devices together? One problem is that a small mobile device significantly restricts the amount of local storage available. Another is that a mobile node is typically an order-of-magnitude slower with graphics, which is important with higher resolution large monitors.

If you're talking about the future then you could easily see where our "tasks" reside somewhere in the cloud and we just use whatever hardware terminal is handy to view and/or work with it, be that a phone, a tablet, laptop/desktop, TV, etc. You login to the device with your fingerprint/retina/whatever and the last thing you were working on with the previous device pops up, ready to go. The unlimited storage in OneDrive really starts to make that sort of thing possible. I never thought I would support such a thing since I'm a developer but I look at what I actually do and it begins to make sense. For example, since all my code is local I have massive redundancy: RAID1 system on my dev machine, then I copy my source to my laptop for a fallback in case of the RAID1 machine blows up and fries the disks, and finally I occasionally make another copy and store that in a safe deposit box in my bank (the ultimate disaster recovery plan in case the entire office burns down). Wouldn't it be better to have all my source code in a datacenter with automatic geographic redundancy? Not as yet another backup of my local copy but rather a place where it officially resides, where it's compiled, etc. I just can't let go that much yet ... but I'm beginning to see the wisdom in it.

... but the idea is to get things like a regularly-updated 1st-party Facebook or Chase app. If Win10 desktop gets it, Win10 Phone gets it.

Problem I see here is that the reason Facebook and Chase don't develop for Windows is that they both say "you get a better experience using the browser."

This is true. Why is it true? Because their website is not scalable and does not work well with mobile, and they have never written a proper mobile website. That is why it is necessary for many websites to create a web app because they either don't have the knowledge on how to create a proper scalable mobile site or they decide creating an app uses less resources. What they don't understand is that investing in making the site scalable with proper HTML5 which is now available would prevent a lot of maintenance cost later on by having to duplicate all site changes into app updates for all the platforms they support. Future maintenance would simply be updating the web site, and mobile devices would automatically reflect that.

Sites no longer need a "mobile" site and a "desktop" site. They just need a single site that is scalable. Yes, it is harder up front, but is so much easier once it is done.

Originally Posted by runamuck83

Is there a web wrapper app that currently exists in the WP store that you'd recommend as an example of a well developed one?

No such thing as a "well developed web wrapper app" as far as I know. Only a such thing as a well developed web site.
Try visiting Availability in North America - Microsoft - Global both on a desktop and on your phone. Same exact site, same URL, but it will properly change the layout to scale to the size of the device. Most MS pages will do this, and is a great example of what can be accomplished when you think about device sizes when you develop a site.

I can't remember the names right now, but there were a couple of apps that I installed, but once I realized I could not tell the difference between visiting the site with IE on my phone or using the app, I removed the app and decided it would be better for device memory to use the URL for those sites.

The only apps I have that are for viewing web content are for sites that do not have a proper mobile site to start with. Like Windows Central... smh... a site originally dedicated for mobile, and you have to use an app that can't even access all the features. Then again, there are all kinds of errors on this site if you were to try to validate it.

If you have a proper developed site, you don't need an app for your site. However, because of the mindset of many people, a web app that "points to an URL" will do everything a company would need it to do if they would just write the site properly to start with.

Problem I see here is that the reason Facebook and Chase don't develop for Windows is that they both say "you get a better experience using the browser."

This is true. Why is it true? Because their website is not scalable and does not work well with mobile, and they have never written a proper mobile website. That is why it is necessary for many websites to create a web app because they either don't have the knowledge on how to create a proper scalable mobile site or they decide creating an app uses less resources. What they don't understand is that investing in making the site scalable with proper HTML5 which is now available would prevent a lot of maintenance cost later on by having to duplicate all site changes into app updates for all the platforms they support. Future maintenance would simply be updating the web site, and mobile devices would automatically reflect that.

Sites no longer need a "mobile" site and a "desktop" site. They just need a single site that is scalable. Yes, it is harder up front, but is so much easier once it is done.

HTML5 hasn't take off on mobile because is too expensive and the results are poor, performance sucks. HTML5 is years away of becoming the platform for mobile.
Even if HTML5 would be ready, there is so much money invested in native apps, developers won't ditch their apps to rewrite everything again in HTML5. So, add a few years because of that.

The ability to access the Windows APIs from a website is more relevant for the desktop. However, this possibility hurts the phone and the tablet, because developers won't have to invest in Windows development to target the desktop. In Windows 8, It was absolutely forbidden to publish a website in the Windows store.

HTML5 hasn't take off on mobile because is too expensive and the results are poor, performance sucks. HTML5 is years away of becoming the platform for mobile. Even if HTML5 would be ready, there is so much money invested in native apps, developers won't ditch their apps to rewrite everything again in HTML5. So, add a few years because of that.

I'm to the point where I'd almost prefer a mobile website version of some apps. One "app" that I use on multiple platforms is the FlyDelta app. On Windows Phone it appears to be a complete program rather than a wrapper for the website and is pretty functional (or, at least, WP has a good method of shelling out to a browser control). When I converted my wife from WP to an iPhone a few months ago I was anxious to see how it would be on iOS. Terrible! I was completely surprised. The iPad version appears to shell out to the website for seat maps and other things ... which then causes a lengthy "refreshing" pause when you close that page out and return to the app. We end up using the delta.com website in a browser because it's a smoother experience unless we're doing just a simple check on flight status, then we use the app. The FlyDelta app for Android is better than iOS but insists on shoving "house ads" for upgrades in your face (the iOS version does it too but not as intrusively, IIRC).

HTML5 hasn't take off on mobile because is too expensive and the results are poor, performance sucks. HTML5 is years away of becoming the platform for mobile.

Except some phone apps already are merely web wrappers. A lot of the bank apps, for example. Now, I'm not saying it's the best experience hands down, but I'd much rather take a bank web app that could use my phone's camera to scan checks (like the new Hosted Web App capabilities give) over one that cannot. That's the type of stuff these new APIs could enable.

The ability to access the Windows APIs from a website is more relevant for the desktop.

I would think it is more relevant for the mobile platforms, since it would allow a bank's website to access the user's camera on the phone or tablet to take a picture of a check for deposit, or allow access to your microphone so you can record a message, or allow access to your calendar so the website can set up an appointment when you schedule a flight, book a room, rent a car, or set up a doctor's appointment online.

All of these could work well for mobile or desktop. Camera access would work best via mobile, however.